Monday, December 7, 2015
"For a Nuisance": Street Art in London, 1834
The full report of Richard Carlile's 1834 trial, below (accessible via the Digital Panopticon), makes fascinating reading and conveys a rare picture of London in the 1830s...
155. RICHARD CARLILE was indicted for a nuisance.
MESSRS. ADOLPHUS and GURNEY conducted the Prosecution.
WILLIAM MARCH. I am ward-beadle of Farringdon Within. The house, No. 62, Fleet-street, is the defendant's, and in the parish of St. Dunstan-in-the-West, in the ward of Farringdon—I have called there for taxes, and seen the defendant—I was there last week—I have received the taxes from him for that house for nearly ten years.
WILLIAM CUTTRISS (City policeman, No. 2.) The house, No. 62, Fleet-street, is on my beat—on the 21st of October I observed a figure in front of the house, at the first-floor window—it did not reach to the top—the whole window was taken out—there was an inscription of "Church-rates" between the two windows—there was a man dressed in blue, described as a broker, in one window, and under that were the words, "Temporal broker:" at the other window was a figure dressed in the form of a bishop, in lawn sleeves, with a mitre, and under that figure was written, "Spiritual broker"—this is a tolerable representation of the appearance of the house (looking at a frontispiece of a number of the Scourge)—there were only two figures on the 21st of October—there was a third figure put up on Sunday, the 9th of November—the words, "The props of the Church," were inscribed between the two windows—this exhibition caused a great nuisance and great disturbance on the path—on the side where the house is, there are a great quantity of people assembling at times all day long—there was no room for people to walk along the footpath unless it was made—we are obliged to tell the people to walk on—they must walk out into the coach road if we did not interfere—I have frequently seen persons obliged to do so—I have seen a great quantity of people assembling on the other side of the street—this has continued since the 21st of October, less or more—the figures continue to be placed there to this time, and were there when I came by this morning—it still continues to produce the same effect; but not to so great an amount as before.
Defendant. Q. Did you see any persons standing about this morning?
A. I cannot say I saw a quantity—I saw ten—I did not count them—there might be three or four, or more, or ten—I did not take notice—nuisance meant a great quantify of people collected, and not leaving room for people to pass—I have been there on duty every day except Lord Mayor's day—frequently when people wanted to pass they were obliged to shove and push through; to push by them; and often got to words about it—I was obliged to make them pass on—I saw no riotous disposition at all.
Q. Did you see any disposition on the part of the people to give offence?
A. Of course, by shoving one another about—"What did you shove me for?" for instance; and the answer was, "Why do you not get out of the way?"—I have seen other people besides policemen shoving one another—I have lived in London all my life—I never saw a crowd of people congregate together at a shop window in that way in my life—I never saw a caricature shop window so bad as that—I have seen many in London—I cannot mention any particular sight at which I have seen crowds—I have been on duty on Lord Mayor's day, and have seen a greater number of people collected together, and in Smithfield on market-day.
Q. Have you seen, at other sights, people more orderly, considering the crowd, than those you have seen before my house?
A. I cannot say as to that, because many of us are stationed at bars in different places, and are not in the habit of going about to see all the crowd—there have been three people taken up before your house; two confined, and one fully committed, and found guilty of picking pockets; and the other two, for attempting to pick pockets, were sent to Bridewell—I cannot say the number of persons on any one day that I have seen before your house—I never counted them—I cannot say there was any fighting or row in particular.
MR. GURNEY. Q. You did not observe many there this morning?
A. No—there are not so many people on a wet day as on others—I passed at eight o'clock—I have seen people there on Sundays as well as week days.
THOMAS LIGHTFOOT . I am one of the street-keepers of Fleet-street. I have known Mr. Carlile's house many years—I have lately observed figures exhibited in the windows of his first floor—one represented a broker—this is a fair representation of the house as it is at present—one of the figures represents a Bishop—I am at a loss to say what the other represents—it is a black figure—that and the figure of a Bishop stand together arm-in-arm—the other figure has a pitchfork in its hand, and horns on its head—I have been in the street on Sundays as well as other days—it is my duty to go round every morning—I have seen the same exhibition there—they were not taken down during Divine service, to my knowledge—I saw them up—I have seen them as I went to church, and in the midst of church time, when it is my duty to go round, I have seen them there as before—I have seen an unusual number of people collect on week days and Sundays, on both sides of the way—sometimes more and sometimes less—sometimes twelve, or sixteen, or eighteen on each side, and sometimes, I should think, nearly forty on each side of the way at a time—several times persons have been compelled to go into the carriage-way, instead of going along the footpath—I have continued to observe this up to the present time—I was not able to attend on duty yesterday, but I saw it on Sunday week, and the number of persons, and the exhibition of the figures, were not the least altered.
Defendant. Q. You have stated there were from sixteen to forty persons on each side of the way since the 21st of October?
A. At different times—at times not so many as sixteen—at different times there has been different numbers—I have seen people compelled to pass in the carriage way on several occasions—it was my duty to be there—it [is] seldom necessary for people to go into the carriage way unless there is some particular obstruction in the street—I have been present at a seizure for church-rates at your house—I was at the last one—I saw you on that occasion—I saw no resistance on your part—at one time, on account of the business going forward, I thought you were rather irritated.
Q. Was there not a particular reason for that? Was it not an attempt to put a ladder to the window to remove the figures?
A.Being in the house, I did not see the attempt made, but I know there was a ladder—I found no obstruction on your part to the officer's levying—no particular anger—you seemed rather excited, as was natural—the officers were allowed to carry away goods without impediment—no obstruction whatever was put in their way—I have seen no disorderly conduct on the part of the persons before your house—no further than a little jostling when we could not get through, such as is common in obstructions.
LEONARD COLE . I purchased these papers, "The Scourge," Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7, at Mr. Carlile's shop, No. 62, Fleet-street, on Sunday, November 16th—I purchased No. 9 this morning—that has the picture in front representing Mr. Carlile's house, and the figures at the windows.
The following Extracts were here read:—
HOISTING THE EFFIGIES.
"To hoist these every day will be like shutting up my own shop, as well as my neighbours': I must have some consideration for both. I am thinking that one day in a week will be enough: perhaps Sunday will be the best day, as that will not injure business; and that is the day on which the Church is most thought of—the people, in passing by, will see how it is supported. I have no view but public good; certainly no desire to injure any one, but a passionate desire to do some good in the world, so as to leave it better than I found it. Out of respect for the business of my neighbours, I will, after this week, fix on Sundays as the best day on which to exhibit the props of the Church,—the spiritual broker and the temporal broker."
WEEK'S HISTORY OF THE [EFFIGIES].
"We hoisted them full length on Sunday, and made the Bishop preach on the present state of the Church to all passers by, from eight o'clock in the morning until six in the evening, while the temporal broker officiated as clerk and published other notices. I very much respect the institution of the Sabbath, and never call on my shopmen to open on that day; but one of them requested that he might be allowed to open, and did so. He retailed seven hundred copies of A Scourge over the counter, beside many other things. Thinking of the matter, I could not but consider it as doing more good than is done by an open gin-shop on that day, particularly as I, the master, (as Cobbett would say,) was preaching the revelation of the gospel in assistance of a sick minister of the true Church, both morning and evening.
"They have been partially exhibited on every other day; but Sunday is to be the grand gala day of public appearance, when the bishop is to have clean boots and clean linen; while the temporal broker must be content to remain as he is, as not worth repair."
MR. LEONARD HILL . I am a silversmith, and live next door to Mr. Cariile's shop. I have seen the effigies up at Mr. Carlile's—this is a correct representation of the exhibition in front of the house—there is a window with two figures in it—when I first observed it, it was the same, except that there is an additional figure now—this continues till the present time—I observed it this morning—the consequence of that exhibition has been, a continued assemblage of crowds on the pavement next Mr. Carliles, and on the opposite side as well, in considerable numbers—I have counted them—I should fairly state that, on one occasion, it happened to be Lord Mayor's day—yesterday I counted, on the opposite side of the way, upwards of fifty persons—if I was to say that is the average number of the crowd which have been there since the 21st of October, perhaps it would be more than was the case—there is a perpetual succession of people in the street—the numbers have been so great on the same side as the shop as to be, to me and my neighbours, a serious injury; at I have witnessed persons, passengers, coming from the west being obliged to turn off the pavement into the carriage road repeatedly—I and my neighbours have been incommoded to a considerable degree—I have not been able to keep my shop open as usual on all occasions—on some occasions I have not been able to keep it open—I do not mean to state I have closed altogether on account of the crowd, but partly, that part next to his house—I have had cases of some of my customers (ladies) approaching in a carriage, and fearful of coming out of the carriage lest they might be interrupted by the crowd.
Defendant. Q. On what particular day has your shop been shut during hours of business?
A. In the first instance, as well as my memory serves me, on the 21st of October—I cannot tell how long it was shut, for I was out part of the time, making the necessity still greater; for my son, being prudent, thought it right to close the shop—it was partly closed on Lord Mayor's day; and at the police-office you admitted the great injury done to me and the neighbours—I did not witness the shop being shut up on the 21st of October—the shutters were taken down before I came home.
COURT. Q. Did you leave it shut? A. No.
Defendant. Q. How long have we been neighbours? A. I should say about seven or eight years, as well as I can recollect—I have witnessed nothing else in your mode of conducting business different to other shopkeepers, except one instance, I think, in January last; there was a similar exhibition with regard to the effigies; but if you mean to ask otherwise whether I have been annoyed by you as a neighbour, I should say "No;" I complain of this case—my answer applies to the Sunday as well as other days—my shop door is westward of your house, and the remote point from it—the crowd has obstructed my private door to a very high degree; that is, at the end nearest your house—the inmates of my house have sustained very great inconvenience in going in and out since the effigies have been up—I am speaking within compass when I say I counted fifty persons standing opposite your house at one time yesterday—I cannot say I noticed any disorderly conduct—I should have found it difficult on many occasions to pass through them—prudence would have told me to go into the road instead of going through the crowd—my shop was closed on the days I have stated; and, as a matter of precaution, I have been obliged to have my shutters in the passage, ready, if occasion occurred—I came home on the 21st of October, or the 22d, about four o'clock in the afternoon—I saw the effigies the first day they were exhibited—the crowd had subsided, in a great degree, on the first day.
JAMES HART . I am a linen-draper, and live at No. 60, Fleet-street, two doors westward of Mr. Carlile's shop. I have observed the effigies in front of his shop—I have constantly noticed a crowd of persons on that side of the pavement next Mr. Carlile's, and also on the opposite side—I have generally seen foot-passengers obliged to go out of their way in passing the house—there has not been room left to pass along the footpath—the crowd has not extended so far as my house—Mr. Hill's frontage is about twenty-three feet—I have counted the persons at various times before Mr. Carlile's door—there have been fifteen, sixteen, thirty, and thirty-five, on the side nearest to his house—I counted on one occasion twenty-five—and on two occasions, fifty and seventy, on the opposite side—the crowd extends more along the pavement on the opposite side.
Defendant. Q. You have not found any obstruction of a passage to your shop?
A. No further than the obstruction before your house has caused one at my shop—there has been no persons assembled before my door—there has been a decided inconvenience to carriages stopping at my house—I consider not only the foot passengers, but even the omnibuses and other carriages have caused inconvenience in the street—I have seen no obstruction of carriages which I could say was occasioned by a crowd of persons—when I counted the persons, they were before your door in a group—on the other side they stood more in a line—I only counted persons standing before the shop to witness the effigies, and partly the placards—if persons' curiosity was very strong to see the figures, I suppose they would cross to the opposite side—I have inhabited my house nearly seventeen years—I do not recollect any other crowds of a similar nature—I have seen several processions through the street occasioning greater crowds—in the annual procession of mail coaches—I have not witnessed any thing disorderly on the part of persons assembled, during the last few weeks—I have not been made uneasy on account of it—I may have seen more policemen about than usual, but never outnumbering the people.
COURT. Q. Your door is twenty-three feet from Mr. Carlile's door, at least?
A. My door is in the middle of my shop window, and is still further from Mr. Hill's frontage—in the procession of mail-coaches, they pass on, and the crowd disperse.
HENRY HARRIS . I live at No. 59, Fleet-street, and the third door westward from Mr. Carlile. I remember the first exhibition of the figures of the bishop and broker—from that time to the present, people have been obstructed in their passage through the street, both in the carriage-way and foot-way—there has been another effigy added in the course of the time, representing the devil, which has increased the crowd considerably—on one or two occasions there has been a tumult among the crowd assembled opposite Mr. Carlile's door—on one occasion, in particular, a lady and her family came into my shop for protection from the crowd—that was on the Lord Mayor's day—I am an Indian-rubber and sponge dealer—on the day his "Satanic majesty" was exhibited, a lady also came into my shop for protection—that was after the Lord Mayor's day—the third figure was put up on the Lord Mayor's day—the whole of his shop front is covered with writing, and different pieces of paper—it is made a complete puppet show of—on a Sunday I have stood in my third floor, and seen frequent obstructions—omnibuses standing, and looking at those figures, to the annoyance of gentlemen's carriages passing, and several persons were annoyed by it.
Defendant. Q. How long have you been an inhabitant of Fleet-street?
A. Four years and five months—I have been only a year and a half in the house I now live in—I sell wholesale and retail—the drivers and passengers of several omnibuses stop on Sundays, so as to prevent carriages passing—I have frequently observed policemen desiring them to go on—I swear they stopped for no other purpose, but to gaze at the figures—I think the exhibition of the third figure has increased the crowd—I have numbered fifty on the other side, and forty before your shop—I have been obstructed myself going to 'Change, and have been obliged to go into the coach road—I know no other obstruction in the City, except it may be a parcel of pickpockets—there was a great tumult on the Lord Mayor's day opposite your house, and the female came into my shop about one o'clock—there was no procession at the time—I have seen a crowd in the street on former Lord Mayor's days—they pass to and fro without interruption—I have noticed a crowd when there was a procession of mail coaches—they look and pass on, but at your shop they stop, and prevent people passing—I have stopped to see the effigies, and read every particular about them—when the lady entered my shop, she complained of the mob collected opposite Mr. Carlile's shop; which is a great nuisance indeed, and it is a pity but what It was removed in so grand a city as London—the ladies took care to avoid any insult by coming into my shop to avoid the crowd—there was a kind of disturbance—a kind of running of pickpockets one way or the other—any gentleman passing would have looked at his pocket.
Q. Have you not seen many well-dressed persons stopping opposite my shop?
A. Very few indeed—I do not think I have observed any but the lowest of the low stop opposite your shop—my house is not so near yours as Mr. Hill's is—I have suffered an injury—I used to take 6l.[£6] a day—I now do not take 2l. or 2l. 10s. [£2 or £2.50], which is the consequence of your nuisance, which causes many carriages to go away—I have got a very good carriage connexion—I sell various articles manufactured from Indian-rubber.
MR. ADOLPHUS. Q. What do you make of Indian-rubber?
A. Shoes, clogs, garters, braces, cloaks, and various things, which ladies and gentlemen principally call for.
ROBERT GRAY . I live at No. 64, Fleet-street, two houses east of Mr. Carlile. I am a coach-proprietor, and conduct the business of the Bolt-in-Tun—I noticed the figures exhibited at Mr. [Carlile's] when they were first put up, and have continued my observation of them up to the present time—the effect has been the attracting a concourse of people on both sides of the street—I think usually there was more on the opposite side—there were placards on the wall as well—I read some of them—the crowd assembled caused the stoppage of the foot-passengers passing to and fro—I have frequently seen people obliged to go out into the carriage-way, there not being room on the foot pavement.
Defendant. Q. There is another house between yours and mine?
A. Certainly, the newspaper shop, "Bell's Weekly Messenger"—that is rather a large frontage, and there is Bouverie-street between—I should think I send out twenty coaches in the course of the day, and twenty come in—I have exhibited very large placards about those coaches—my object is to attract attention as much as possible—I have loaded coaches in front of my place, but not unloaded—I once received a letter from Alderman Waithman about it—they may have loaded a coach opposite your door occasionally—I cannot say I ever heard a complaint about it—I never had complaints as to No. 63, about it—I do not unload coaches in the street—they finish their loading in the street—I do as much down the yard as can be, then the coach is drawn up for the passengers to get into it—perhaps two or three porters are employed about the coaches—I exhibit a bill with the names of the coaches on it—that is never complained of—I was present when the late Lord Mayor was at your house for about half an hour—after talking the matter over with you, pro and con, threatening he should be obliged to call on the police unless you took down the effigies, and with the understanding that you should have a hearing before the Alderman—you agreed in about half an hour that you would take them down, which you did—the conversation was about the legality of the exhibition—when the Lord Mayor expressed a doubt as to the legality, you produced him the Statute, and consented to remove them If his Lordship would cause you to be summoned, that an investigation as to the Statute law might be examined into—I was present at Guildhall when the case was gone into before Mr. Alderman Key—you were not fined or detained on that occasion—I saw the effigies exhibited the day after the examination—I did not see them on the day intervening the examination—(Mr. Carlile said, in the shop, he would take them down, and unless he was summoned the following day he would put them up again)—I have counted from fifteen to fifty people repeatedly on the other side of the way—I also counted from ten to thirty opposite your shop from my neighbours opposite, (Mr. Crew's,) standing there—I consider that it caused an obstruction—I have seen people go out into the carriage-way on both sides of the street—I may have seen that occasioned before my own house by my coaches.
WILLIAM NOBLE . I live at No. 152, Fleet-street, nearly opposite Mr. Carlile's—I am a seeds man—I remember the figures being put up at his windows—they collected a great crowd in the street on both sides of the way, so as to cause inconvenience—it does not always extend so low down as my shop—it did on one occasion when the crowd was so great looking at the effigies, that it caused one of our windows to be broken.
Defendant. Q. Do you consider your house immediately opposite mine?
A. No; nearly opposite—the Portugal Hotel is directly opposite—that is a very large double house—twice as large as mine—the crowd have collected from the Portugal Hotel, up to Mr. Crew's, which is west-ward—my window was broken on the 6th of November—I have frequently had windows broken before by other people—not many times in a year—I never counted the crowd—my customers have repeatedly remarked to me what a disgrace such an exhibition was in Fleet-street.
STEPHEN BROWN CHANDLER . I keep the Portugal Hotel, No. 155, Fleet-street, exactly opposite Mr. Carlile's door. Since the effigies have been exhibited the crowd has very much increased on my side for the way—persons used not to stop any long time together opposite my house before the exhibition—it has been so every day since—they have rendered my house inconvenient, by standing over my grating, so that my servants could not see to do their business in my kitchen below, and are obliged to burn candles—my customers have frequently complained of inconvenience—mine is more of a country hotel.
Defendant. Q. Have you never need to resort to the use of candles during the winter in the kitchen?
A. Very seldom—I have on some occasions on dark days; I should have cause for candles in the summer time from this—I never counted the people—I have not noticed them particularly disorderly—they were rather quiet observers—I never saw any disorderly conduct—I never knew any tumult before your house since the 21st of October, in particular—the police officers have had occasion to interfere to clear the way for my customers to come in, when carriages have come up, or country coaches putting down passengers there—that would not have occured in the ordinary stoppage of coaches—I think fifty people may pass my house in five minutes.
COURT. Q. Did you ever observe any of the people stand about on former occasions? A. No.
Defendant. Q. Not on any occasion?
A. When they have passed in procession—when the king has passed I have seen as large a crowd, or larger, but they moved on immediately—it was not an annoyance all day—I was never compelled to put up my shutters in consequence of any expected procession.
(The Defendant, in an exceeding long address, contended that he had not acted illegally, nor caused so great an obstruction as is often occasioned by His Majesty going to the House of Lords, or other places in procession; nor more than a congregation leaving church—a funeral, or other processions—he stated that on a former occasion his shopman had been fined during his absence from town, for a similar exhibition, and his object in causing a repetition of it was, to prove that there was no Statute law under which that fine could have been legally levied; after which he called the following witnesses:—)
ANTHONY BROWN, ESQ. AND ALDERMAN . I sat as Magistrate at Guild-hall, the latter end of January and beginning of February last—I recollect a young man being brought before me for suspending over the street some effigy or effigies—I do not recollect what—but they were suspended over the street—I ordered a fine of £5.
COURT. Q. Was that order in writing? A. It must have been, I presume—it was a conviction.
Defendant. Q. Are you sure a fine of £5 was paid? A. No, I am not—I heard it was.
Q. May I ask whether it was on this statute (producing one) that he was brought before you? A. I apprehend it was—but really the thing has passed my recollection.
CHARLES FAREBROTHER, ESQ. AND ALDERMAN . Defendant. Q. Had you occasion to meet me in my house, in October last? A. I went into your house—you stated to me that you had legal authority to retain the figures there—you had an Act of Parliament that entitled you to retain the figures—and you considered you had been very ill treated—for that during your absence from home parties had come in and levied on your effects for Church-rates—I cannot call to my recollection that you stated any thing about the former exhibition—I think you stated something about a former conviction, but I cannot recollect what—indeed, I did not feel it any part of my duty to enter into that—I stated to you, that on coming down Fleet-street, I had heard from the officer that the mob there, was occasioned by placing the figures on the outside of your windows—that I considered it my duty, as Chief Magistrate of the City of London, to prevent the disturbance which would arise in the street from people collecting together—and that you might be perfectly satisfied I would not consent to the public peace being disturbed, that I had directed a force of twenty of the police to be sent for, that they might immediately clear the street—you certainly acted with great mildness—with great temper and respect towards me—I told you the figures must come down—you answered that your only wish was that you should be enabled fairly to try the question, or words to that effect—but that you had no money to throw away in law—and if I would allow you to be summoned for the offence, the figures should be immediately taken down.
Q. And they were removed on that arrangement? A. I hardly know how to call it an arrangement—I insisted that they should be taken down, that the crowd should be dispersed—I had no report that the figures were there the day following.
MR. ADOLPHUS. Q. What day was it you went to the house? A. The first day the figures were up—I sent for a body of police to remove the crowd—from the conversation I heard from the persons outside, I should call them loose, idle, and disorderly.
Defendant. Q. Should you describe the assembly, on that occasion, to differ from the ordinary current of people who pass in the street? A. Certainly, very much so—I judge not only from the conversation without the door, but from the conversation in the shop.
COURT. Q. From what you heard, you thought it your duty to interfere? A. Oh, certainly—about a week ago I was going through the street, and saw a great concourse of people round, and desired the officers to clear them away.
SIR JOHN KEY, BART. AND ALDERMAN . I was acting as Magistrate at Guildhall—I think from 20th to the 25th of October—the defendant was before me on a summons—my attention was called to this Statute—I ordered no fine to be levied on the defendant in that month.
SAMUEL DALBY . I live at No. 151, Fleet-street, next door to Mr. Noble. My house is nearly opposite Mr. Carlile's—I am a boot and shoe-maker—I have not noticed any thing in Fleet-street lately injurious to business—I have noticed the effigies at the defendant's house, and people stop to look at them—I have not seen any thing disorderly in the conduct of the people—I exhibit articles outside my window—I have lost nothing—my window is very large—I can see every thing that passes, more so than many tradesmen in the neighbourhood.
MR. ADOLPHUS. Q. For what length of time have you observed the effigies? A. I should think somewhere about a month—I believe all the time they have been there, there has been some people there—I believe the whole of the day; an unusual number since the effigies have been there—I observed nothing but people standing looking on—I do not care if they are there for seven years, it does not make any difference to me—I suppose I have seen twenty or thirty people standing at the Portugal Hotel—I have not paid any attention to the other side of the way—I think there were not so many people on Sundays, but perhaps I have not been at home.
Defendant. Q. Has it come within your observation that there has been a daily abatement of the curiosity? A. I think there has—I think I have heard the neighbours say they have decreased—there was a few people when I left my house this morning about ten or eleven o'clock—the crowd has occasioned some little obstruction.
COURT. Q. What sort of weather was it between eight and ten o'clock to-day?—was it not raining very hard? A. I think it did not rain at ten o'clock—I believe it did between eight and ten o'clock—I have seen persons obliged to go out into the carriage-way because they could not pass conveniently on the foot-way.
GEORGE COOPER . I live in Francis-street, Bedford-square. I have been in the habit of passing through Fleet-street occasionally, within the last six weeks—I found nothing that was an obstruction to my passage in the neighbourhood of the defendant's house, nor to any other person—I could pass freely, as far as my business is concerned.
COURT. Q. What time of day did you pass? A. From eleven till one or from eleven till three rather.
Defendant. Q. Can you mention the number of times? A. I did not take notice—I can say half-a-dozen
times—I have passed to-day between eleven and twelve—I found nothing of a crowd more than is frequent in other places.
MR. ADOLPHUS. Q. What are you? A. A builder—I am not in business now—I used to go on the north side, opposite Mr. Carlile's house—I walked on, and met with no obstruction.
RICHARD SANDFORD TROWBRIDGE . I am a carpenter. I have been doing some work for a solicitor in Bouverie-street lately, which called me frequently to that part of the town.
COURT. Q. What was the nature of your business? A. If I am obliged to tell you, the gentleman's name is Drake, a solicitor in Bouverie-street—I think I have passed fourteen or fifteen times within the last month—I live in Kingsgate-street, Holborn—I go past the house, and directly round the corner into Bouverie-street—I never, on any occasion, found any obstruction there—as I came down to-day, through Fleet-street, I observed very nearly the same obstruction at a gentleman's, Mr. Waller, who has various prints up—I passed at 10 o'clock this morning.
MR. ADOLPHUS replied.
GUILTY.— Judgment Respited.